tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post7795749363608024964..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Kyle S on Atonement (BOOK Club 7)Stephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-72741274825546017032008-11-01T14:11:00.000+00:002008-11-01T14:11:00.000+00:00Kyle: I wrote earlier this year about process reli...<B>Kyle:</B> I wrote earlier this year about <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2008/02/process-reliabilism.html" REL="nofollow">process reliablism</A>. I also wrote something similar in response to this thread: <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2008/10/reliable-belief-producing-faculties.html" REL="nofollow">Reliable belief-producing faculties</A>.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-866635211043228122008-10-31T13:31:00.000+00:002008-10-31T13:31:00.000+00:00Sorry... I quoted the wrong paragraph above.I agre...Sorry... I quoted the wrong paragraph above.<BR/><BR/>I agree with <I>this</I> paragraph:<BR/><BR/><I>On the other hand, you seem to think that knowledge is in fact very rare. This is an unusual and uncommon view. You seem to think that knowledge is true belief that is justified by science. The best that prescientific societies could hope for was simply true belief.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes. Knowledge is rare, and the best that prescientific societies could manage was simple true belief. Evolution accounts for the fact that prescientific societies did in fact have many true beliefs even lacking a rigorous epistemic method.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-64854198962057372182008-10-31T13:29:00.000+00:002008-10-31T13:29:00.000+00:00I hold to the majority view that knowledge is a ve...<I>I hold to the majority view that knowledge is a very common thing, that there are many beliefs that are both true and enjoy a positive epistemic status sufficient for knowledge.</I><BR/><BR/>Basically, I agree. This view accounts for the fact that people have in the past expressed many beliefs we now believe to be false: their beliefs in general did not rest upon a sound epistemic basis. It also accounts for many beliefs contradicted by scientific reasoning. It also accounts for a lot of mutually contradictory beliefs: they can't all be true, therefore the majority must be false. A reliable epistemic basis should not produce <I>so many</I> false beliefs.<BR/><BR/><I>This wouldn't really be of much use. It would simply show that the defendant wasn't lying. There is no cognitive difference between a genuine memory and a false memory.</I><BR/><BR/>Irrelevant. It's still a fact, and it has to be accounted for by any theory. If we could prove that the defendant really did have a memory of not killing the victim, the prosecutor would have to explain <I>why and how</I> the defendant acquired that false memory.<BR/><BR/><I>Don't you think there are cases when one should reject the evidence, simply on the basis of what you believe, not on the grounds of stronger evidence?</I><BR/><BR/>First, keep in mind that what I believe <I>is</I> evidence. My beliefs are not always veridical: the <I>content</I> of a belief is not always true, but that I believe X is indeed a fact, and if the fact of that belief is relevant to a theory, the theory must account for the fact.<BR/><BR/>But, in general, no, never. There is never any ground to <I>reject</I> evidence, to say that some theory might be true even if it entails a statement that <I>contradicts</I> the facts in evidence.<BR/><BR/><I>After all, there are cases of people being sent to prison for murder, who were in fact innocent, and not becuase the court failed in it's weighing up of the evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>That's simply not the case: every innocent person sent to prison happened because the court did indeed fail to weigh up the evidence. Because courts make decisions in finite time, we know these failures can and will occur. Indeed the <I>only</I> way we ever know that an innocent person has been falsely convicted is because more evidence compels a different conclusion.<BR/><BR/>But again: all of this is beside the point. Presumably you assert that you <I>know</I> a god exists. Even if evidentiary, scientific epistemology were found not relevent to knowledge about god(s) — even if science were found totally unreliable — that wouldn't help your case one bit.<BR/><BR/>You either are or are not making a truth claim about reality. If you're not making a truth claim about reality, then we have nothing to discuss. If you <I>are</I> making a truth claim about reality, you must show us a method that <I>consistently</I> validates truth claims and that I can employ using the information available to me to validate your specific claim.<BR/><BR/>Simply saying that people's beliefs are generally reliable, people believe in God, therefore we have sufficient epistemic basis to believe in God is insufficient. Simply because my beliefs are just as <I>a priori</I> reliable as yours and I <I>do not</I> believe any God exists. You must show why <I>my</I> beliefs are unreliable and your reliable.<BR/><BR/>Science decisively breaks the symmetry in my favor. If you reject science, you must show me an alternative method that breaks the symmetry in your favor. (And simple popularity will not do; there have been too many circumstances where the majority has been found to be mistaken.)Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67718526873967246362008-10-31T09:58:00.000+00:002008-10-31T09:58:00.000+00:00"[1] Don't you think there are cases when one shou..."[1] Don't you think there are cases when one should reject the evidence, simply on the basis of what you believe, not on the grounds of stronger evidence?<BR/><BR/>[2] After all, there are cases of people being sent to prison for murder, who were in fact innocent, and not becuase the court failed in it's weighing up of the evidence. In those cases do you think that the defendent was being irrational to continue protesting innocence?"<BR/><BR/>[1] - No. That sounds dumb.<BR/><BR/>[2] - The innocent man has stronger evidence, as far as he is aware - his senses: he didn't do it. He just can't convince the court of the case. If the evidence upon which the court bases its case is very strong (but incorrect) the innocent man may even, quite rationally, begin to doubt his own innocence and his own sanity. But, in your hypothetical case you are giving us the third party knowledge that he is in fact innocent because he didn't do it. In normal cases this knowledge isn't available, barring witnesses that didn't come forward or other unexamined evidence. <BR/><BR/>The court is mistaken, but on the presumption that someone must have done it, and our man fits to the satisfaction of the court, the court finds him guilty. <BR/><BR/>The possibility of such mistakes is one of the reasons why the death penalty is opposed. If it later evidence becomes available at least some reparation can be made for jailing the innocent man.<BR/><BR/>In a similar way some intelligence had to create life - so God is the guilty party. Who else could it be? In God's case the theist jury is presuming guilt and manipulating the evidence to convict, and wants a sentence of eternity.<BR/><BR/>Poor old God gets a really tough deal, particularly in Christianity. First he's crucified, and then he's condemed to an eternity of running Heaven Wing, for people who are never going to turn up. What's more, for all those atheists proclaiming God's non-existance, let alone his innocence as the creator, theists are also condeming them to eternal Hell Wing.<BR/><BR/>Clearly we need a campaign of protest ouside churches - "Release the Jerusalem Three!", "God Is Innocent!"<BR/><BR/>Hope you're not on the jury should I be mistakenly accused of murder. Apparently the non-doubt in your beliefs could prove to influence what is otherwise a good idea - the presumption of innocence.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-89630099782570548682008-10-31T01:14:00.000+00:002008-10-31T01:14:00.000+00:00We seem to have a major disagreement about knowled...We seem to have a major disagreement about knowledge.<BR/><BR/>I hold to the majority view that knowledge is a very common thing, that there are many beliefs that are both true and enjoy a positive epistemic status sufficient for knowledge.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, you seem to think that knowledge is in fact very rare. This is an unusual and uncommon view. You seem to think that knowledge is true belief that is justified by science. The best that prescientific societies could hope for was simply true belief.<BR/><BR/><I>Memory itself is a real fact and could in principle (if we had much-improved brain scanning technology) be admitted as evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>This wouldn't really be of much use. It would simply show that the defendant wasn't lying. There is no cognitive difference between a genuine memory and a false memory.<BR/><BR/>Don't you think there are cases when one should reject the evidence, simply on the basis of what you believe, not on the grounds of stronger evidence?<BR/><BR/>After all, there are cases of people being sent to prison for murder, who were in fact innocent, and not becuase the court failed in it's weighing up of the evidence. In those cases do you think that the defendent was being irrational to continue protesting innocence?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-39718475806066558032008-10-30T22:15:00.000+00:002008-10-30T22:15:00.000+00:00You find the word "sense" at the root of a lot of ...You find the word "sense" at the root of a lot of our epistemological words and phrases such as "sensible", "nonsense", "doesn't make sense".<BR/><BR/>The <I>project</I> that I'm interested in is understanding, organizing and being able to predict my subjective experiences. Pain hurts and pleasure feels good: that's how the brain works.<BR/><BR/>I think what Kyle is groping at is this. Suppose we found the best possible scientific theory, which by definition would explain <I>all</I> of our experiences in the simplest way. By what virtue would we believe that scientific theory has anything whatsoever to do with the <I>truth</I>?<BR/><BR/>The problem is, suppose science really does have nothing whatsoever to do with truth. Then what? We're screwed. The truth is simply unknowable, since our subjective experiences are all we have to work with.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67438834543151019412008-10-30T18:35:00.000+00:002008-10-30T18:35:00.000+00:00Kyle S to BB:"You claim that I have not given adeq...Kyle S to BB:<BR/><BR/>"You claim that I have not given adequate defence of the awareness of God, but by your own standards you seem unable to give an adequate defence of your senses."<BR/><BR/>I don't think our senses alone can be defended as a reliable route to truth, but when subject to sceptical scrutiny, testing, etc (see my earlier post) the resulting experience of using the senses plus critical thought provides the most coherent truth we can get at. Your awareness of God doesn't provide anything but a re-affirmation of itself based on the presumption there's a God in the first place. There is no experience of God that can be distinguished from the hallucinatory, and nothing about your God that can be shown in any way to require what all religions require with respect to God.<BR/><BR/>You can dream or hallucinate about fairies, but, based on your senses plus critical thinking, and with no presumption that they do exist, you conclude that they don't exist and that your experience was a dream or an hallucination. At least I assume you do.<BR/><BR/>But one might presume fairies do exist. Using our most reliable tools of the senses plus critical thinking what might we expect to see or otherwise experience as a consequence of fairies existing? We might expect to see them occasionally and capture them on VT - unless they choose to make themselves invisible to us and our instruments. Perhaps we might expect to see the consequences of their magical powers (miracles) - unless they choose not to make their miracles subjectable to scrutiny. Any fairy-ist could concoct any number of excuses as to why they still exist but they fail to conform to our understanding of the normal material world. Is all that is required to sustain a belief in fairies is that the fairy-ist presumes that they do exist, and that any 'experience' that is unexplained by ordinary sensory means is evidence that they do exist.<BR/><BR/>In what way is your God different? Perhaps he isn't.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44126938863338690992008-10-30T16:24:00.000+00:002008-10-30T16:24:00.000+00:00Also, because we make actual decisions after a fin...Also, because we make actual decisions after a finite time examining a finite amount of evidence, we can come only to a probabilistic conclusion: we might be incorrect.<BR/><BR/>But it means something very specific to say that a scientific conclusion is incorrect: It means that we would draw a different conclusion if we had more evidence.<BR/><BR/>It does not mean that there can be any false statement such that we would conclude its truth from an examination of <I>all</I> the evidence.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15520240589643281702008-10-30T16:20:00.000+00:002008-10-30T16:20:00.000+00:00Empirical science is much much more than just "I s...Empirical science is much much more than just "I see X, therefore X is true." It's not scientific to say <I>only</I> "I see a tree, therefore a tree exists." And it's equally unscientific to say <I>only</I>, "I feel God, therefore God exists."<BR/><BR/>Our naive intuitions are just not rigorous enough to be trusted absolutely. We must examine our naive intuitions with scientific rigor to determine when and under what conditions they are and are not reliable -- and also examine reality with equal scientific rigor to account for <I>why</I> they are or are not reliable under different conditions.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-36655846175442833582008-10-30T16:15:00.000+00:002008-10-30T16:15:00.000+00:00How is that person supposed to make a subjective d...<I>How is that person supposed to make a subjective distinction between perception and guessing?</I><BR/><BR/>By applying a conscious, rigorous process, i.e. science.<BR/><BR/><I>You haven't answered the question about how we justify beliefs in our daily lives.</I><BR/><BR/>They're usually not, which is why people have a lot of false, stupid beliefs when they go outside the environments where their beliefs evolved.<BR/><BR/><I>Imagine you are in court accused of murdering your boss. The evidence against you: you were heard shouting at you boss and saying I'm going to kill you the day before the muder, you have no alibi, you were seen in the area around the time of the murder, the murder weapon belonged to you. However, you know that you were not the person who committed the murder because you can remember what you did and it wasn't murder, but you have no proof to present in court.<BR/><BR/>In this case how is science going to help you out?</I><BR/><BR/>Science would help by examining more facts.<BR/><BR/>Memory itself is a real fact and could in principle (if we had much-improved brain scanning technology) be admitted as evidence.<BR/><BR/>More importantly, you present -- absent memory -- a very weak circumstantial case. There definitely could be a weight of facts (videotapes, witnesses, fingerprints and other forensic evidence) that would lead me to doubt the veracity of my own memory: the simplest explanation that accounted for all the facts might well be that I've somehow formed a false memory.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-64375974947275037802008-10-30T14:59:00.000+00:002008-10-30T14:59:00.000+00:00Just because their beliefs are not consciously jus...<I>Just because their beliefs are not consciously justified doesn't mean they're false.</I><BR/><BR/>How is that person supposed to make a subjective distinction between perception and guessing?<BR/><BR/>You haven't answered the question about how we justify beliefs in our daily lives.<BR/><BR/>Consider this example:<BR/><BR/>Imagine you are in court accused of murdering your boss. The evidence against you: you were heard shouting at you boss and saying I'm going to kill you the day before the muder, you have no alibi, you were seen in the area around the time of the murder, the murder weapon belonged to you. However, you know that you were not the person who committed the murder because you can remember what you did and it wasn't murder, but you have no proof to present in court.<BR/><BR/>In this case how is science going to help you out?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-84454561589476251032008-10-30T13:38:00.000+00:002008-10-30T13:38:00.000+00:00That would mean that a child who is unable to unde...<I>That would mean that a child who is unable to understand science is not justified. People living in the amazon rainforest who have had no contact with outsiders are unjustied. All those people who existed before the scientific method are unjustified.</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed: none have a conscious rigorous scientific justification for their beliefs. So what? Just because their beliefs are not consciously justified doesn't mean they're false.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15882185669667595452008-10-30T13:36:00.000+00:002008-10-30T13:36:00.000+00:00If I go outside and look at a tree, then it seems ...<I>If I go outside and look at a tree, then it seems to me that there is a tree there. This is not a conclusion this is a statement about my experience 'I am being appeared to treely'. You say that this is evidence for the conclusion that 'there is a tree'.</I><BR/><BR/>Light is striking your eyeballs, creating a pattern of neurological events. Your preconscious mind is <I>interpreting</I> this information, using very complicated neural structures, drawing a conclusion, and presenting the conclusion to your conscious mind that you see a tree.<BR/><BR/>Cross your eyes, and your preconscious mind will draw a different conclusion, that there are <I>two</I> trees, and present that conclusion to your conscious mind.<BR/><BR/>What's important is that these conclusions drawn by our preconscious minds are not <I>rigorous</I> (although they are often <I>true</I>).<BR/><BR/>It's insufficient in a philosophical sense to simply say, I know a tree exists <I>only</I> because my preconscious mind presents me with the conclusion that a tree exists. In a philosophical sense, we want a more rigorous connection between the perception and our interpretation of reality.<BR/><BR/>You might object that people who do not apply this philosophical rigor are being "irrational". Perhaps so, but calling some mode of thought irrational is <I>not</I> to call it <I>false</I>, just insufficiently rigorous.<BR/><BR/>Now, as it happens, we can rigorously, scientifically justify the conclusion that one sees a tree when one has a particular pattern of sense impressions. And we can scientifically justify <I>why</I> our preconscious minds consistently come up with true beliefs <I>under ordinary circumstances</I>. Therefore, we are justified under ordinary circumstances in trusting our preconscious minds... keeping in mind that if we're ever in doubt, we can apply full scientific rigor to decisively get at the real truth.<BR/><BR/>Thus it is with God... Our preconscious minds draw particular conclusions. They might or might not be correct. Since we are in doubt, we must -- just as when we are in doubt about what conclusion to draw from the evidence of our senses -- apply rigorous scientific reasoning to determine what conclusions to draw from the experiences you call experiences of God.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-69715507798880624152008-10-30T13:06:00.000+00:002008-10-30T13:06:00.000+00:00If I go outside and look at a tree, then it seems ...If I go outside and look at a tree, then it seems to me that there is a tree there. This is not a conclusion this is a statement about my experience 'I am being appeared to treely'. You say that this is evidence for the conclusion that 'there is a tree'.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you on that. However, you object to me doing something like this: It seems to me that God exists, I have an apparent awareness of God's existence, and I conclude from this that 'God exists'. This is not an undefeatable belief, it has the same sort of status as the tree belief, it could be wrong but I have good prima facie reason for believing it.<BR/><BR/>I claim that there is no obvious epistemic difference between these. You disagree.<BR/><BR/>It is the nature of your disagreement that I don't understand. You say that perception is acceptable because science has proved it to be acceptable. But that can't be the case. That would mean that a child who is unable to understand science is not justified. People living in the amazon rainforest who have had no contact with outsiders are unjustied. All those people who existed before the scientific method are unjustified. If you developed global amnesia would that mean that you are unjustified in taking the evidence of your senses at face value?<BR/><BR/>I believe that we have lots of sources of belief, many that we can both agree on: the senses, testimony, reason etc... I just go one further.<BR/><BR/>Aside:<BR/><BR/>I don't think the Bible is true by definition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31276468798068025852008-10-30T12:43:00.000+00:002008-10-30T12:43:00.000+00:00(Kyle: If you take the Bible as authoritative with...(Kyle: If you take the Bible as authoritative with regards to truth, i.e. the Bible is true by definition, then it is analytically impossible to find any part of it false.<BR/><BR/>In order <I>even in principle</I> to find any part of the Bible false, you would <I>first</I> have to deny its authority and say that there was some other method to determine truth to which one could submit truth claims of the Bible.)Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55651880111797027212008-10-30T12:39:00.000+00:002008-10-30T12:39:00.000+00:00But, Kyle, you're not giving a reason to believe i...But, Kyle, you're <I>not</I> giving a reason to believe in God.<BR/><BR/>There's simply no controversy over allowing perceptual facts into evidence.<BR/><BR/>However, "I saw God" is not an perceptual fact. It's a <I>conclusion</I>, and allowing perceptual facts into evidence is not to allow intuitive conclusions.<BR/><BR/>If we go one level deeper, we can talk about experiential facts, but the justification is more complicated. But in the same sense as above, "I <I>feel</I> God" is still a conclusion, not a experiential fact.<BR/><BR/>Fundamentally I don't have to justify taking perceptual facts as an evidentiary foundation the issue is not in controversy. What's controversial is how you <I>draw conclusions</I> from those facts. Those are two different issues, as has been explained to you time and again.<BR/><BR/>You have two choices: If you want to use well-accepted scientific epistemology to draw conclusions, then you don't need to explain or justify the method: We all know how science works, and most of the readers here accept it as sound. But you do need to actually <I>use</I> the method in the well-accepted manner: you must present <I>facts</I>, not intuitive conclusions, and you must create a rigorous theory that accounts for those facts. Then we can evaluate the theory's accuracy and simplicity.<BR/><BR/>Alternatively, you can propose an alternative method for drawing conclusions. But if you're going to present an alternative, you should at least <I>describe</I> that method, and explain why it is not vacuous, i.e. show it cannot be used to justify <I>any</I> conclusion at all.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-37213978583513741412008-10-30T12:20:00.000+00:002008-10-30T12:20:00.000+00:00Hi Wombat,Thank you for your comments.1. Laws in t...Hi Wombat,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your comments.<BR/><BR/>1. Laws in the OT<BR/><BR/>Many of the laws given in the OT are to a nation, so there is a certain amount of pragmatism involved. If you were to look at the laws in our country, you would certainly not think that they were clear examples of wrongdoing. Is it clearly wrong to drive more than 70mph? Or to build a house without planning permission?<BR/><BR/>Societies will be forced at some point to make illegal things that are not wrong in themselves. God's people are no longer a nation, so these laws do not apply, but we can still learn from them. For example, the OT says that if you have steps up to your roof, then you should install a rail around the edge, this seems to be some sort of health and safety regulation, so it teaches us that it is important to make sure your property is not unsafe.<BR/><BR/>2. The wiping out of other tribes and nations.<BR/><BR/>You must understand this within the narrative of the Bible. God is a holy and powerful God, and he is the sustainer of all things. People have used the gift of life and continued existence to rebel against God. this is unacceptable. God was using the nation of Isreal to punish othe evil nations. He also used other nations to punish Isreal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-41831978671081278352008-10-30T10:07:00.000+00:002008-10-30T10:07:00.000+00:00Kyle S."If you could show me that something that i...Kyle S.<BR/><BR/>"If you could show me that something that it taught was false."<BR/><BR/>Lets leave out miracles etc. (allegorical) or footling factual inaccuracies. The ancients weren't always the best informed after all and can be excused a little leeway I think.<BR/><BR/>How about the dietary laws in the OT.<BR/>Is it really wrong to eat shellfish?<BR/><BR/>Was it really Ok for that slaughter of other tribes e.g the Midianites?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-85834238935169685292008-10-30T00:53:00.000+00:002008-10-30T00:53:00.000+00:00This is an important issue to what we are discussi...This is an important issue to what we are discussing.<BR/><BR/>You claim that I have not given adequate defense of the awareness of God, but by your own standards you seem unable to give an adequate defense of your senses.<BR/><BR/>The debate seems to be running like this:<BR/><BR/>K: Gives reason for thinking that there is an awareness of God.<BR/><BR/>B: That is not a good reason because of p.<BR/><BR/>K: But if p is true, then there is no good reason to accept the testimony of our senses.<BR/><BR/>B: You are going off issue, so I refuse to comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12529556464166482812008-10-29T01:12:00.000+00:002008-10-29T01:12:00.000+00:00Again, Kyle, we're going off track. The point is n...Again, Kyle, we're going off track. The point is not to justify empirical science. The point is for you to persuade us that your belief in God is not ridiculous, ludicrous, fit only for credulous children.<BR/><BR/>Of course, you don't <I>need</I> to persuade us of anything. It's a free country, you can have whatever ridiculous beliefs you want. If you want to believe in God, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, shape-shifting lizard people, timecubes or the Cubs chances in the 2009 World Series, that's fine. Believe what you want; without credulous fools we'd have a lot of priests out of work.<BR/><BR/>I'm still waiting for you to start a serious discussion.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65122049694431434102008-10-28T22:05:00.000+00:002008-10-28T22:05:00.000+00:00What sort of problems would cause you to doubt its...<I>What sort of problems would cause you to doubt its authority?</I><BR/><BR/>If you could show me that something that it taught was false.<BR/><BR/>What sort of problems would cause you to doubt the authority of your senses?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13377251478030960862008-10-28T22:03:00.000+00:002008-10-28T22:03:00.000+00:00Barefoot Bum:in some places you seem to state that...Barefoot Bum:<BR/><BR/>in some places you seem to state that for one to form beliefs on the basis of experience an argument is required.<BR/><BR/>e.g. <I>You can say that we have some sort of subjective experiences, but reasoning from those experiences to the conclusion that those experiences are an awareness of something requires a justification.</I><BR/><BR/>In other places you seem to deny this.<BR/><BR/>e.g. <I>I don't have to justify using my senses.</I><BR/><BR/>You later to try to argue that your senses are a source of information about the world, but that it is not important to know these arguments.<BR/><BR/>Is a person required to justify the use of their senses or not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-60652359136757492942008-10-28T11:42:00.000+00:002008-10-28T11:42:00.000+00:00Kyle: I haven't seen the sorts of problems that sh...Kyle: <I>I haven't seen the sorts of problems that should cause one to doubt [the Bible's] authority.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Precisely</I> what kind of authority are you talking about? What sort of problems <I>would</I> cause you to doubt its authority?Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31959264317285070002008-10-28T02:08:00.000+00:002008-10-28T02:08:00.000+00:00wombat: Don't worry, you won't have the last word....<B>wombat:</B> Don't worry, you won't have the last word. :-D<BR/><BR/>We have to drill down to what we mean by "unlikely". That can mean only that some experience (or its facile interpretation) <I>fails to cohere</I> with the rest of our experiences.<BR/><BR/><B>Kyle:</B><BR/><BR/><I>I can't believe that you think that the external world if the best explanation of your sensory experiences. There is two problems with it. Firstly, it just doesn't fit with what people actually do, and two, there are lots of explanations of your sensory that do not posit an external world.</I><BR/><BR/>I said it was the <I>best</I> explanation, not the <I>only</I> explanation.<BR/><BR/>And it's irrelevant that people don't think consciously about whether or not reality is the best explanation; if they did think consciously about it, they would come to that conclusion.<BR/><BR/>But, as I mentioned before, most people's beliefs about reality are shaped by evolution, not conscious thought.<BR/><BR/><I>The regularity exibited by the world perhaps demonstrates that your mind likes regularity. That is much simpler.</I><BR/><BR/>It's only "simpler" if you handwave around the enthymemes. You have to be <I>rigorous</I> before you can evaluate simplicity. <BR/><BR/><I>Many of these are as good as, if not better, than the external world hypothesis.</I><BR/><BR/>So you say. First descrobe your theory <I>rigorously</I>, with no enthymemes (hidden assumptions) so that the hypotheses rigorously lead to the conclusions verified by experience, and <I>then</I> count the premises.<BR/><BR/>I'm not going to do your philosophical work for you, Kyle. Just because you happen to say that some theory is simpler doesn't mean it actually is.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-24013712705510436032008-10-27T22:36:00.000+00:002008-10-27T22:36:00.000+00:00Hi Wombat,You say:The Bible is full of contradicto...Hi Wombat,<BR/><BR/>You say:<BR/><BR/><I>The Bible is full of contradictory, ambiguous and downright unpleasant stuff which ought by your method have been sufficient to disconfirm your initial feeling about it.</I><BR/><BR/>I think you are rather overstating this point. I admit that some parts of the Bible are difficult to understand, and that at times it seems to contradict itself, but I don't think there are any clear examples of outright contradiction.<BR/><BR/>Think about how reason works. It is quite easy to come up with paradoxes or to argue for things that are clearly false. Such things shouldn't cause us to abandon reason.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, I don't believe that the Bible is easy to understand, or that I will ever settle all the objections that have been raised against it, but I haven't seen the sorts of problems that should cause one to doubt it's authority.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com